I don't wish to spoil anyone's day or encourage premature celebrations but the facts (as far as the polls go) are clear to anyone who cares to look at them.

The only count that matters is the electoral college. According to Real Clear Politics aggregation across all polls, Obama is ahead 172 to 134 in "solids" and "likely" and ahead 75 to 57 in "leaning". That leaves him 23 short, with Romney 79 short.

About 100 are still in the "toss up" category, with only 3 such states "leaning" Romney.

As the magic number is 270, Romney would have to overcome Obama's lead in a significant number of the "leaning" votes and/or manage a virtual clean sweep of the remaining toss ups. Nothing in the trends shows that to be either likely or possible and I don't think Romney has given his supporters much such hope in the recent days.

A reversal of these proportions is not impossible - just very unlikely .

As for the accuracy of polls, four years ago today, Obama led McCain +2.3%. You know what happened next. Today he leads Romney +2.9%

It seems that every single Presidential election, one side declares victory well before the election. And they cite all kinds of data to support their cause.

And every election one candidate is dismissed because their campaign is in shambles, and them miraculously finds a recovery.

In reality, it is almost alwaysa pendulum. Every bounce is followed by a drop. And there are ALWAYS events we don't expect that swing the election one way or the other. A debate gaffe, a world event, oil prices, even a chage in the weather (e.g. a natural disaster) all have the potential to swing things.

Most of these things are actually not in the contol of the candidates, but that doesn't stop us from placing blame/credit.

I'm not sure I see the value in predicting results. And as much as we focus on the President, what happens in Congress will probably affect the next 4 years even more.

(BTW, I am an Obama supporter. But I don't for a minute think this is a lock. I expect it to be a close election, no matter what the polls say at the moment).

I think the decks are clear to reelect Obama because Romney blundered in the convention and he went to the extent of playing the race chord indirectly hinting that that Obama is not like him which was even highlighted by Clinton in his convention speech. This single hate item is seen by voters sufficient to write Romney off,of course he is no match with Obama on other issues also.

This is just more inane tea-leaf reading from people who call themselves pundits but in fact know very little about presidential elections. Firstly, does the Economist staff even look at their own poll which shows Romney and Obama in a statistical dead heat, virtually unchanged from before the conventions? Furthermore, are they unaware that convention bounces are virtually meaningless (ask Mike Dukakis)? Finally, do they not know that polls conducted prior to late September have almost no predictive power statistically? Parlor games aside, the race is still so close that there are too many external events that can influence and determine the outcome of this election that are beyond the control of either party.

"Statistical dead heat" is media speak for "This thing is done and dusted but we need something to talk about for the next three months." Romney is 70+ electoral college votes short and has no chance of getting anything remotely close to that.

Bounces are meaningless when they buck the trend - the way McCain's "Palin" bounce did. No such thing this time - Obama's post convention bounce confirmed, not contradicted, the trend.

Four different pollsters look at the swing state situation today, two of which are tracking polls, and all four come to a similar conclusion; the race is still tied, even in the swing states that will decide the election. Gallup, Radmussen, USA Today, and CBS/NYT all confirm that there has been virtually no change following the conventions and the two campaigns are deadlocked, The interesting findings are the larger than expected numbers of undecideds and pursuadable voters still out there. Contrary to the liberal media's ongoing and comically absurd narrative that somehow the election is over. There will be many more political obituaries written about the Romney campaign before this is all over, none of which has anything to do with reality. Rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

I was trying to reflect many people's thinking, not so much my own. We need TE to do an extensive study to try to answer a common uncertainty of how much good or bad social programs do. Also, to try to ferret-out how many would suffer how badly without it, and how many just find it convenient. Anyone who thinks it is 100 percent either way isn't in the real world. One stat, which I'm sure can't be so but keeps being written, is 2 workers for every person on a social program. Also, when I see lawyers advertising to get people on disability, it gives pause. I support most social programs New Deal-on but I sometimes feel I could be on firmer footing. And consumers affect employment more than gov't. You can't buy other than a Chinese TV today, and that isn't their fault.

I saw another sign-beggar near the freeway last week. In our proto-typical world, a Democrat sees a poor out-of-luck homeless person. A Republican sees a bum who should just get a job. But I'm not sure what to see. Is this some poor vet who served his country and now can't find a job in our slow economy? Or is that the fellow I went to high school with who got drunk instead of going to school? I was going to throw him a quarter, then I didn't. I went to Wal-Mart and looked at all the Chinese TV's. Buying cheap-foreign and throw away can be addictive. Maybe we should get used to eight percent unployment. Maybe we should get used to sign-beggars.

Not correct; Real Clear Politics average across all polls give Obama a significant lead. More importantly, Obama is well ahead in almost all of the key swing states. With the numbers as they are, he will romp home.

Even worse for Romney is that his personal rating (honesty, credibility) is a long way behind Obama's, Biden's or even Ryan's.

It will take more than anti American protests in the Muslim world(nothing new there) to change that picture.

Correct - and Obama has surrounded himself with them. His minions even copy his facial expressions. They all develop and instant false wide smile at intervals. It comes and it is there for 5 seconds and then it is gone. Begala particularly practices this. I look at them and the thought crosses my mind - how false can you get.

They are all now drawing out the word aaaaaaaaaaaaand just as Obmaa does.

They also bound up onto stages like he does with hands almost together, jigging up and down.

Mr Romney got rich by buying companies using other peoples money, loading them with debt, paying himself and Bain Capital millions in fees instead of investing in the company resulting in the company going bankrupt, 100.000s of american workers loosing their jobs and pensions while Mitt paid ZERO in taxes as the profit was transferred to Luxemburg etc.

The election is in the bag for Obama unless he blows it in the debates. I doubt that will happen, as Romney seems more gaffe prone than Obama.

Ryan will likely shred Biden in their debate, but it won't matter since people don't vote for VP.

Presently, the Fedral gov't spends $1.40 for evey dollar it brings in. At least Ryan has the cojones to put up a plan to address the Federal debt. Of course, people aren't going to like it, but they won't like any credible plan. So all the others pretend that there is no budget problem, tell people what they want to hear, and continue to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

By comparison Obama's 2012 budget was totally rejected by the democrats controlled senate 99-0. As they did the year before. What a total embarrassment for him - not a single vote up by a member of his own party.

"A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday.

In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president’s blueprint.

It’s the second year in a row the Senate has voted down Obama’s budget.

Obama's 2012 budget failed 97 to 0 last May after Obama himself last April said he wanted deeper deficit cuts."

Cutting revenues by cutting taxes for people in Romney's income bracket by Trillions
Adding expenditures by spending $3 Trillion more on defence than what Pentagon has requested

The majority of americans would have to pay higher taxes while getting less benefits in order to magically trying to balance that budget. Resulting in even higher taxes for the middle class and more severe cuts giving us more poor people, less spending and a slower economy if not a new recession.

The capital gains tax rate should be calibrated to maximize revenues for the government. If you make the CG tax rate too high, capital moves offshore where the US can't tax it.

If the CG tax rate were 0%, the government would get 0. If the CG tax rate were 100%, the government would get 0, since the investment would all move elsewhere. (There would also be a loss of jobs and other taxable events. These other events would favor a CG tax rate of 0, but for the sake of this discussion, I will ignore this.) If the government taxes anywhere in between, it will get some revenue. The question is: at which rate is revenue to the government maximized? (There might not be one answer, as the curve in between 0% and 100% may be bimodal. In which case, the lower tax rate would have the benefit of the ancillary revenues generated by increased economic activity.)

When BC lowered the CG tax rate from 28% to 20%, the revenues from CG taxes went up, suggesting the peak is lower than 28%. When GWB lowered it again from 20% to 15%, tax revenues went up again, suggesting that the peak is somewhere below 20%. Whether the peak lies between 15% and 20%, or whether it is below 15%, I don't know. I also don't know whether the peak shifts with time, but my feeling on this is that it doesn't shift much. Someone who knows more about econometrics may be able to provide insight. the data we have would suggest that raising the CG tax rate to 35% would result in large outflows of capital and would probably not be beneficial.

But back to the original comment. I am not saying that Ryan's plan is the one that should be passed. But at least he is putting something out there as a starting point, which is more than anyone else has done.

Leaving aside the cold numbers (which may be true), I think there is something unfair about capital gains being taxed at lower rate than a salary. Don’t give me the baloney about ‘job creators’. Can someone tell me how many jobs Mr. Romney created with his $20 million income last year, for which he did not have to lift a finger? Also, a retired person puts his money in a savings account or CD, and this money probably is invested in the economy immediately. However the puny interest he earns on his CD is taxed at a higher rate than the money a guy gets from his stock portfolio or ‘carried interest’.

"There are three differences when it came to the DNC and the RNC:
- Michelle, Clinton and Barrack were enthusiastic. They offered hope. The RNC only offered hatred. The GOP didn't dare to talk about Mitt Romney, since nobody likes him. Mitt Romney is a turn-off even for the GOP lemmings.
- Bill Clinton explained exactly what the differences between the Path with the Democrats and the You're-on-your-own approach by the GOP is. President Obama laid out his plan for the next 4 years with a feasible and balanced budget plan and a balanced approach to the challenges - from energy to entitlement reform. The RNC didn't dare to talk about their own plan - neither Romney (who doesn't have one) nor Ryan (who is running away as fast as he can from his own plan).
- The Republicans are [liars]. They don't care about facts. Heck, they said it themselves! Even the right wing extremists at FOX News had to acknowledge that Paul Ryan's Speech was full of lies. Mitt Romney didn't really say anything - neither factually true nor false just meaningless. The Democrats' speeches were consistent on the other hand."

It's not hard to tell why the convention didn't help Mittens a whole lot.

Michelle, cliton and barak once again lied thru their teeth. They offered the American taxpayers nothing to end the Dem depression and the $130,000 that each of their children will inherit due to their reckless spending.
Obamacare will add $1 trillion a year to the debt, his social policies reward those who lack ambition and refuse to work. His energy policies are a disaster and foreign policy is at best nothing more than an on going apology tour

Interesting, because when both conventions were fact-checked, the RNC was riddled with falsehoods and the DNC was riddled with facts, but then again, in the land where fantasy is lauded, facts are subversive.

and who are the fact checkers why WashPost and Media Maters ultra left wing radicals. When fact checked by NON partisan independent agencies the dem's came out with their pants on fire with Clinton and Biden leading the charge

Interesting and concise analysis. I would not say, however, that the 48 percent honesty rating for Ryan necessarily plays in his favor, vote-wise. If someone had asked me who was the most honest of the four, I would have replied that Ryan was. Personally, I respect his honesty. Politically, I don't much care for his honest opinions, so I won't vote for him.

Another potentially misinterpreted point: the 70 percent of people worried about health care will operate against Obama. Had the pollsters called me, I would have said that health care was a big issue for me. But not because I oppose Obamacare; on the contrary, I'm worried that the Republicans might gain enough power to repeal it.

I just think there are some different interpretations of polling data that could be presented. Or maybe there is some more precise polling to be done.

Paul Ryan has become famous for his blatant dishonesty, it's all everyone was talking about after the convention speech he gave, at least when they weren't talking about Clint Eastwood engaging in a battle of wits with a chair and losing.

Apparently someone in the Romney camp revealed that they were concerned about him before they picked him because he's known to tell tall tales, similar to the hilarious lie about his marathon time that he reported as "under 3 hours" (exceptional) rather than his actual time of over four hours (not even average among the group that was running). Ryan added "Yeah, I was fast when I was young" in that interview by the way, lest anyone trot out the idea that he had forgotten what three- versus four-hour marathon times mean.

In any case, his convention speech was so full of false claims that the press actually woke up from their sleep and fact-checked him from here to Tuesday, needless to say he didn't make it past the weekend, and was revealed as a truly champion liar.

You need to be honest: you are an unfortunately cobfused but your ego has gotten you in the way. If you have any allegations of false statements at the convention, please state them clearly. If not, then your personal confusion need not be shared with others at this honorable forum.

I think the most amusing number here is the high rating for Ryan on honesty, given his convention speech. Clearly Obama inherited a mess and while one can argue with his progress in dealing with it, Romney is being increasingly exposed for what he is: the Manchurian Candidate of the big money boys whose policy intentions depend completely on whoever he is speaking to at the moment.

Massachusetts Politicians who have sought the White House in modern times:
______________________________
JFK: First Catholic President. Harvard educated. Won a squeaker over Nixon in 1960 due in part to admitting Southerner LBJ to the VP: Election Popular vote 49.7% vs 49.5%.

Paul Tsongas: Greek-American MA Senator, failed candidate for the 1992 Democratic nomination. Could not make it past Iowa or New Hampshire. Yale Law. Harvard School of Gov.

_______________________
Massachusetts candidates have over sized presidential ambitions.
Their appeal remains regional.
Massachusetts candidates have flopped in recent years since JFK. They fail to appeal to the South and Midwest. And they lose to Southerner Candidates.

After the convention, after Romney failed to mention the military in Tampa and came up with an incredibly tone deaf explanation as to why he did so, The Onion ran a piece stating that they gave up, satire couldn't top reality.

Not that Romney has revealed he believes the median income in America is around $250,000, satirists everywhere will retire realizing that no humorist can best Romney himself when it comes to making him look like an unfeeling Mr Moneybags.

I'm no fan of Romney, but for the sake of accuracy, he was saying that $250,000 is the upper limit of middle-income. Which is basically what Obama says when he proposes a tax hike for the "richest Americans," the ones making more than $250,000.

I think Romney just screwed up the grammar, as we all do when we speak. Not that I'll mind his being barbecued for this. Obama's "you didn't build that" flub was just, when you look at the entire eight-sentence speech, a matter of indefinite pronoun reference. The Republicans have ridden that into the ground, so turnabout is fair play.

You wouldn't have actually, you know, read the GOP platform? Try as I might, I haven't been able to find any of that in the platform, which can be found here.

The only thing I've been able to find is a rather subtle reference to global warming here: "Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain."

-Banning abortion in cases of rape or incest:
The Platform opposes abortion and contains no exceptions.

-Opposing allowing gays to serve openly in the military:
The Platform opposes "the use of military as a platform for social experimentation," which can't honestly be interpreted any other way (unless they're against racial integration)

-Global warming: From the platform "...This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research. "
What part of denying the consensus on global warming and defunding research about it seems "subtle" to you?

So it turns out that you didn't want to look very hard. It's translated into political jargon, but it's all there.

Ok. Let's be clear: Six Trillion in Debt. Think what will happen when T-Bills cost 3% - how much will that be? What will need to be cut to pay all that interest on six trillion? So you want to feel good now and at what cost? Do you have children that will pay for these "shovel not yet ready" solyndras? Where have you been? Clearly you are confused.

George Bush mired the US in two wars paid for on Visa to he tune of $ 2T, not including long term health care costs for diabled veterans.
The Republicans took a budget that was in balance on January 20, 2001, and turned it wildly into deficit even without the two wars.
They then left to their successors an enormous mess. If you think John McCain would have fared any better, you are dreaming. It is a very great shame that John McCain did not win the S.C. primary in 2000. He would have been a far better president than GWB. But even he could not have stopped the GWB recession.
The previous biggest binge of spending came under that most revered of Republican heroes, Mr "Deficits Don't Matter" Gipper himself, when the national debt quadrupled (?).
The most responsible recent Republican president was George Bush Sr., - who is now reviled by the party as not conservative enough. He actually made an effort to balance the budget.
President Obama has struggled with the economy, but at least he behaves like a muture adult. The Republicans leadership in Congress, and particularly in the House, hasn't done so in a very, very long time. There is no reason to believe that Republican fairy tales are going to cure the economy.
Some of us believe that tax cuts - their constant mantra - will only make things worse. Taxes have already been cut in half, and all it has achieved is to build an enormous pile of private capital sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. The beneficiaries of a decade of tax cuts are still sucking liquidity out of the economy faster than the fed can pump it in.
Bill Clinton was right about "arithmetic".

Oh yeah, Romney is certainly moving into high gear, beating the drums of war. You bet he wants an intense and emotional campaign. Just what his consultants recommend because, you know, 'having lots passionate supporters worked so well the last cycle".

Oh what will make them passionate? Any old thing that works of course.

Yes...I think this will the only step to stay in the race for Romney,he should drum up recommending that US should go and start a new war for showcasing US,s strength to the world. Only heshould not make a mistake Bush made i.e not taking prior permission of Congress for funding. He will get total support of Republicans.

This poll has 51% percent saying Obama will do a better job on healthcare versus 40% for Romney. If healthcare is prominent in voters' minds that could actually help Obama.

Interestingly Obama beats Romney on most of the competency questions, albeit on the most important ones of handling the economy and taking the country in the right direction they are neck and neck. I would say that competence is Mick Romney's raison d'etre. He is sunk if he fails to convince on that.